Memeorandum

May 31, 2007

WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame
should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband
was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports
Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee said.

Plame's
differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of
the case that roiled official Washington beginning in July 2003, said
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector
general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.

A
February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of
pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband,
former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip,
Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which
she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told
USA TODAY.

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, Bond said:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•She
told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that
an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA
colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third
officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this,
suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA
officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said.
Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter
is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

Byron York had lots over the weekend (1, 2, 3, 4), including this memo from Ms. Plame which she currently claims does not constitute her recommendation of her husband for the Niger trip:

The report
forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your
comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a
contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence
Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The
embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true
— they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that
they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I
fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently
approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to
investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts,
[redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with
liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no
problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is
clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has
good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not
to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed
light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat
embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am
hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a
position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if
anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

MORE: This is quite an impressive aggregator for the Plame commentary, even if it does put me near the top.

LESS CRYPTIC: Patterico notes that "the idea that [Fitzgerald] should have dropped his investigation as soon as he
“found out Valerie Plame wasn’t covert” just took a pretty big hit." Well, OK. Jeff, posting at firedoglake, has an expanded version of that argument:

[Fitzgerald's new filings mean] that, whatever Toensing herself or anyone else thinks about
Plame's covertness, those pursuing the investigation determined that
she was covert under the statute. (And note that Fitzgerald told the
Court of Appeals in August 2004 that his attorneys from the USA office
in Illinois had participated in analyzing the relevant statutes.) And
the basis for this judgment is no great mystery, now that Fitzgerald
has released the unclassified summary of Plame's post-2001 CIA career
and cover history. Fitzgerald prepared it in response to an order from
Reggie Walton back in June 2006 to give to the defense, after Walton
determined that the disclosure of the classified materials bearing on
Plame's CIA employment would cause serious if not grave damage to
national security, a substitution for that classified material.

Interesting - a document prepared by Fitzgerald in June 2006 is now the basis for Fitzgerald's assertion that "[I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that
Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United
States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent"? How does that work? Wouldn't it be a bit more convincing if Fitzgerald could demonstrate that some research into Ms. Plame's status had been done and a good faith determination had been made in 2003, or at least, "very early in the investigation"? By June 2006, Fitzgerald was well aware of the challenges being made to his investigation.

Oh, well - I have more fulminations on this point in the "MORE" addendum to yesterday's post, but let me recycle it:

...just how strong was the good faith determination that
Ms. Plame was covered by the statute? Did the DoJ run their opinion
past CIA Counsel, or anyone? Or did they calculate that it was in
their interest to assume the statute was relevant and simply proceed,
figuring they would do the work to justify charges under the statute
only if more facts emerged to support a charge? In his Oct 2005 press conference
Fitzgerald did spend a lot of time on the improbable claim that
investigators investigate facts, not statutes, and only open the
statute books after the facts are in. Made no sense, but that was his
position then. Now we are supposed to believe it was "clear from very early in the investigation", and presume they did the work to support it. Work the CIA Counsel has yet to complete. Hmm.

Well. IMHO, the original investigators did proceed in good faith, confident that until they had established some basic facts they could not rule in or out charges under the IIPA, the Espionage Act, or maybe something else.

And Fitzgerald? In a video tape of comments he made after Libby's trial, he essentially admitted he was handed a perjury case and ran with it. Which is fine. But spare us the posturing.

May 30, 2007

Newsweek has an interesting view of the law, and the usualsuspects amongst the lefty bloggers are falling in line behind it - when a prosecutor expresses an opinion in a sentencing memorandum, that is dispositive - case closed, no further questions, move on.

Interesting. I suspect our friends on the left are able to apply a bit more critical thinking when their political sympathies are less aligned with the prosecutor. But I stand ready to assist in the current case.

Here are Isikoff and Hosenball:

May 29, 2007 - In new court filings, [Sentencing memo, Plame employment] special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy: Valerie Plame Wilson, he asserts, was a “covert” CIA officer who repeatedly traveled overseas using a “cover identity” in order to disguise her relationship with the agency.

Fitzgerald has "finally resolved" the question simply by stating his opinion! No defense brief has been filed, no judge has ruled, but Fitzgerald has spoken so it is time to move on.

[Let me break the flow with this UPDATE from a subsequent defense filing (p. 9):

The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently.

As I was saying.]

Oddly, the Newsweek headline writers seem to realize the absurdity of this by contributing a "Was She or Wasn't She?" hed, and the authors do manage to inject qualifiers later in the story, as here:

Fitzgerald attempts to shoot down the idea that the agent's job was mostly analysis.

Patrick Fitzgerald is certainly entitled to his opinion - after all, Rep. Waxman expressed his opinion the last time the left declared "case closed" on her covert status, and yet somehow the case remained open. As I noted at the time, Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard, and did not offer what I described as the magic words, to wit, "Ms. Plame had covert status under the law as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act".

So what was the opinion of CIA Counsel on Ms. Plame's status under the statute? That would not be fully dispositive either, but it would certainly carry some weight. Bob Novak followed up on this with various annoyed Republican Congressman, and wrote this on April 12:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

So as of April 2007 the CIA had not yet done the homework to form an opinion.

And now Patrick Fitzgerald joins in. Let's present the entirety of the legal analysis offered in his latest filing (relax - I have the bandwidth, and you've got the time):

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

It was clear! That was easy - gee, why can't the CIA figure it out lo these many years later? Left unanswered - does "very early in the investigation" refer to the period before Fitzgerald came on? Just who made this judgment, and on what basis? Where is the homework? Who knows?

Lets note some other Unsolved Mysteries - if it was so clear then

(a) why couldn't Fitzgerald make a clear statement of Ms. Plame's covert status in his much-dissected filing in the Miller appeal? Byron York and Mark Kleiman puzzled over this when Isikoff and Hosenball jumped the gun a year ago.

(b) why wouldn't Fitzgerald save himself some legal tussling and introduce the "clear" evidence? Byron York describes the pre-trialmaneuvering which eventually led to mystery trial in which neither side was allowed to discuss Ms. Plame's status.

My guess - Fitzgerald is an aggressive prosecutor and was comfortable moving full speed ahead on what looked to him to be a perjury/obstruction investigation. For purposes of the Libby trial, he had what looked like a straightforward case which would scarcely be advanced by arguing the question of Ms. Plame's covert status; if he won Fitzgerald would be spared some verbal gymnastics and be able to speculate as to Libby's motive more easily. But if he lost a key ruling on her covert status, the defense would spend the entire trial hammering the point that this was an investigation about nothing.

Consequently, he ducked the issue in any forum when it might matter, such as the pre-trial filings. However in a sentencing memorandum the prosecutor is expected to throw in everything, with special emphasis on the kitchen sink.

So, is Ms. Plame covert? We now have the belated and uncontested opinion of a prosecutor who was unwilling to argue this point previously to add to the stack of unpersuasive opinions. My official editorial position remains unchanged - we don't know, the legal work to be establish this has not been done, and we are not likely to find out.

Folks who think the prosecutor gets the first and final word will be satisfied with the current state of play. For myself, I would at least like to see the defense response (Newsweek says we will get one this week) and I continue to hold out hope that the CIA Counsel will respond to Congress, which will then generate a leak to Novak, if he likes the answer, or to Newsweek otherwise.

MORE: There are cogent arguments being offered from the left. Let me cite Jeff (who occasionally graces us with his presence):

[Toensing's] argument is not that Plame was not covert, which I'm sure she'll somehow manage to keep claiming. Her argument has been that Fitzgerald and the investigators knew early on that Plame was not covert, and therefore IIPA could not even conceivably have been violated, and therefore the entire premise of the investigation was flawed and it should have been terminated immediately, thereby eliminating the very possibility of Libby committing the acts for which he has now been convicted and showing the inappropriateness of the whole thing.

But that is just simply wrong, we now can say with certainty. It is the premise of Toensing's argument that is simply wrong. Fitzgerald and the investigators became convinced early on that Plame was covert under IIPA, so the remaining questions were what the relevant actors knew about her status and what their intent was in disclosing classified information about her to reporters.

Good point, but - just how strong was the good faith determination that Ms. Plame was covered by the statute? Did the DoJ run their opinion past CIA Counsel, or anyone? Or did they calculate that it was in their interest to assume the statute was relevant and simply proceed, figuring they would do the work to justify charges under the statute only if more facts emerged to support a charge? In his Oct 2005 press conference Fitzgerald did spend a lot of time on the improbable claim that investigators investigate facts, not statutes, and only open the statute books after the facts are in. Made no sense, but that was his position then. Now we are supposed to believe it was "clear from very early in the investigation", and presume they did the work to support it. Work the CIA Counsel has yet to complete. Hmm.

CHALLENGE ROUND: Let me repeat a point I made last March -my seemingly-simple suggestion remains on the table and unaddressed - CIA pensions are adjusted (upwards!) for service overseas (statute). So, does Ms. Plame's final pension reflect any upward adjustments for service abroad in her last five years? Surely Waxman can answer this question without giving away state secrets.

Let me help position the goalposts - the Other Tom has argued cogently and correctly in the comments to earlier posts that this would not be dispositive, since it would merely reflect CIA employee practice rather than the legislative intent of Congress when they passed the IIPA. However, it would be helpful to see the definition of "service abroad" even in that context, and I bet a judge asked to rule on the applicability of the IIPA would have a similar question as to legal practice in other areas.

So although an answer to the pension question would not end the debate, it would shift the terms a bit. Frankly, I would love to hear an earnest lefty explain why Ms. Plame qualified as covert despite not having received a bump in her pension for service abroad in the relevant time periods; as to how I might spin it, I'll jump off that bridge when I get to it.

So, all we lack is an earnest lefty - surely Christy Hardin Smith or Marcy Wheeler can run this simple question past Joe and Valerie Wilson? Dan Froomkin of the WaPo would be another candidate, since he identified the problem and called for more reporting last March.

And one other thing, sort of in the Trust But Verify subsection and it is terribly awkward to mention this, but - not many righties will actually take Joe Wilson's word for much of anything. However, if he has documentation and can show it to someone credible (I nominate Jeralyn Merritt or Dan Froomkin), that would be wonderful.

I am curious to see whether I get crickets, bafflegab, or a useful answer. Bets?

NOT FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT: Glenn Greenwald has a disingenuous reply (pardon my redundancy) in an UPDATE IV which I will excerpt at length before it disappears behind the Salon Wall:

Reynolds also links to a post from Tom Maguire which is so self-evidently dishonest it is barely worth a reply. Maguire says he is still "unconvinced" that Plame was covert and that news reports confirming her covert status are merely based upon the belief that "when a prosecutor expresses an opinion in a sentencing memorandum, that is dispositive." That's just a deliberate falsehood.

Yesterday's story about Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert. That conclusion is consistent with the initial 2003 determination of the CIA that she was covert, the subsequent confirmation from the current CIA Director (handpicked by Bush and Cheney) that she was covert, which in turn was confirmed by Plame herself when testifying under oath, all of which led the Republican federal prosecutor to emphatically state this in court.

But even in the face of that conclusive evidence from multiple authoritative sources (all of which Maguire conceals from his readers by claiming it is all based on nothing more than "Fitzgerald's opinon"), Maguire still says the issue cannot be decided, presumably because Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds and Laura Ingraham say she was not covert and - hey! - who can say who is right? It's all still up in the air!

1. As to "Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert", I have labored at length to point out that the CIA, in its own vernacular, uses "covert" and "classified" interchangeably without regard to the IIPA. This was emphasized in my discussion of the Waxman hearing (linked above under "noted at the time") and is not a new point. However, I did allude to it in the original post above by saying "Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard". This semantic point - "covert" is used interchangeably with "classifed" by the CIA but is not consistent with "covert" as per the relavant statute - is simply not controversial, subtle, or new. I also linked to a Dan Froomkin on-line chat (in the link under "my official editorial position") which said this:

Blacksburg, Va.: How can the question of Valerie Plame Wilson's status at the CIA (covert or not) finally be cleared up?

Dan Froomkin: Wouldn't that be nice? Fitzgerald tried to clear it up yesterday, stating quite definitively that her status was classified. Which means that while she technically may not have been covert by the standards of the IIPA, her identity as an operative was secret, and should not have been disclosed.

Given the continued debate over what is a fact, it would be nice if it were revisited journalistically and definitively.

Greenwald either has not followed the arguments or is lying. Not exclusive choices, BTW.

2. Greenwald wrote:

But even in the face of that conclusive evidence from multiple authoritative sources (all of which Maguire conceals from his readers by claiming it is all based on nothing more than "Fitzgerald's opinon")

Gee, I trust you guys to follow links on occasion if you doubt me. Do you?

3. More Greenwald:

Maguire still says the issue cannot be decided, presumably because Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds and Laura Ingraham say she was not covert and - hey! - who can say who is right? It's all still up in the air!

But I will also remove any civilian or military officer who stifles debate or simply tells me what I want to hear.

This leads Dobbs to imagine the following Oval Office dialogue:

Officer: President Edwards, your hair looks very nice today.

Edwards: Really? You think so?

Officer: Yes sir, I do.

Edwards: No, come on. You're just telling me that because you think
I want to hear it.

Officer: Honestly, sir, you think I would do that?

Edwards: Yes! You're fired.

(Officer leaves)

Edwards (pulls out compact, looks at self in mirror, smiles): Well,
I had to fire him, but I'm not going to argue with him.

Edwards also notes in the speech, "Since the end of the Cold War, folks here at CFR and elsewhere have been engaged in an effort to be the next George Kennan and define the era." Edwards may not quite be Kennan's intellectual
match, but at least his smile is brilliant.

The NY Times has a moving story about opposing protestors who occupy opposite sides of the street in a small town in Delaware. But check the photo caption:

Jeffery Broderick, foreground, standing alone last week in support of
United States troops as demonstrators for peace occupy an opposite
corner.

I daresay even the Times editors could be persuaded that at least some elements of the "peace" movement support the troops, especially since the Times front-pages a story today in which troops are quoted questioning the value of the current mission.

And for full pedant points I would also like to see "peace" in quotes - the absence of US troops will not equal peace in Iraq any more than it does in Darfur.

May 26, 2007

The new Senate Intel Committee report on pre-war intel has a bit more on Valerie Plame's role in the selection of her hubby for the mission to Niger. Byron York provides his thoughts and a key excerpt:

In that [recent House] testimony, Mrs. Wilson flatly denied
playing a role in choosing her husband, Joseph Wilson, for a
fact-finding trip to Niger. "I did not recommend him. I did not
suggest him," she testified. She said that an earlier Senate
Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that she had indeed
suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular,
what she called a "quick e-mail" describing her husband's
qualifications for the trip was "taken out of context" by the committee
to "make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him."

Now,
Senator Bond has released the entire text of Mrs. Wilson's February 12,
2002 memo. In the memo, which was headlined "Iraq-related Nuclear
Report Makes a Splash," she referenced a February 5, 2002 CIA
intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium that had been
circulating in the previous week:

The report
forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your
comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a
contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence
Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The
embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true
— they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that
they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I
fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently
approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to
investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts,
[redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with
liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no
problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is
clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has
good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not
to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed
light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat
embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am
hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a
position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if
anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

Hmmph - that certainly sounds a lot more like she was putting his name forward than her story had suggested. IIRC (and I apologize for the no-links), her version was that her boss, or someone, suggested her husband for the trip and asked her to draw up a memo explaining the suggestion. If that is true, she certainly did a good job in this memo of disguising her role to make it appear that it was her very own idea.

And WHY WE CARE: Waxman is investigating Republicans on a number of fronts. If he does not follow up on this apparently misleading testimony from a friendly witness it is evidence that he is staging partisan show trials rather than probing for the truth.

BONUS ROUND: Jeralyn Merrit tips us to three new sentencing documents:

[The government] spends a lot of time explaining (and submits 30 pages of exhibits
in a separate document, which I will upload if there's interest
expressed in the comments) why Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent
and why, because the investigation pertained to whether there was a
violation of the IIPA and Espionage Acts, Libby should be sentenced as an Accessory After the Fact to those offenses.

According to the Government, the Probation Department did not
believe those guidelines should apply because there was no evidence in
the proceedings that Valerie Plame Wilson was covert. The Judge
expressly said that wasn't an issue at the trial. The Government says,
nonetheless, that's what its investigation was about and Libby lied and
obstructed it.

She is a skeptic, as am I, but check the filings.

AT A GLANCE: From the first document, p. 12:

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had

In assessing the back and forth between Barack Obama and John McCain, Andrew said this:

Senator Obama says: " It is time to end this war so that we can
redeploy our forces to focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11
and all those who plan to do us harm."

...

Folks, let's not let these guys get away with this. By "redeploy,"
they don't really mean move the troops to where they say al Qaeda is.
They don't want to fight al Qaeda. If they wanted to fight al Qaeda,
al Qaeda is in Iraq — that is indisputable. Bin Laden has said
repeatedly that Iraq is the central battle. You can argue about
whether al Qaeda has been in Iraq all along or whether they are there
only because we've drawn them there. Reasonable minds differ on that.
But however they got there, they're there.

If you really want to fight al Qaeda, you stay in Iraq.

...When you say redploy, you mean withdraw. You don't
actually want to "focus on the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11."
You are content to bring the troops home and leave "the terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11" to build a safe-haven in Iraq even as they
continue to make mayhem in Afghanistan.

...But have the good grace to say so. Don't give us this BS that you want
to redeploy to fight al Qaeda, when the truth is that you want to
"redeploy" to NOT fight al Qaeda.

Fair enough. And in a second response to McCain, an Obama press flack produced this:

"America doesn’t need juvenile name-calling from Washington, we need a
commitment to end this war and bring our brave troops home."

May 25, 2007

WASHINGTON - Courting the anti-war constituency, Democratic presidential rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama both voted against legislation that pays for the Iraq war but lacks a timeline for troop withdrawal.

...Their votes Thursday night continued a shift in position for the two
presidential hopefuls, both of whom began the year shunning a deadline
for a troop withdrawal.

On a vote of 80-14, the Senate cleared the measure and sent it to Bush.

Both Clinton and Obama have faced intense pressure from the party's
liberal wing and Democratic presidential challengers who urged
opposition to the measure because it doesn't include a timeline to pull
forces out of Iraq.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record)
of Connecticut, who also voted against the legislation, was among the
Democratic candidates calling for rejection of it, along with former
Sen.

Of the four Democratic hopefuls in the Senate, only Sen. Joe Biden
of Delaware supported the bill. He said he did so reluctantly because
he viewed the measure as flawed. But he added: "As long as we have
troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them
the equipment and protection they need."

Vote and vogue.

HE OUGHT TO BOO: The Booman Tribune thumps Joe Klein, who praised House Dem Jane Harman's vote in favor of the bill as follows:

...As readers here know, I would have voted for the bill. Voting
against it means you're in favor of a precipitous departure from Iraq.
I'm for a careful departure from Iraq, and an immediate disengagement
from the areas of most intense factional fighting like Baghdad. I
respectfully disagree with those like, Russ Feingold, who have
consistently taken a different view.

It's difficult, though, to have much respect for Clinton and Obama,
who--when you hear them speak--are opposed to an immediate withdrawal,
but voted for a measure which, if passed, would force one. You might
say, this was a symbolic vote. It wasn't. It was a political vote.
Yesterday I spoke with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Ca.) just back from
Iraq, who voted for the bill--as did a majority of Democrats who are
not running for President. "Look, I would love to have cast a vote
against Bush on this. We need a new strategy and I hope we can force
one in September," she told me. "But I flew into Baghdad on a troop
transport with 150 kids, heading into the field. To vote against this
bill was to vote against giving them the equipment, the armor they
need. I couldn't do that."

“A ‘yes’ vote affirms funding for the troops and benchmarks, but fails to impose a responsible end to the combat mission.

“A
‘no’ vote will be manipulated to tell the troops I flew with on a C-130
just days ago that we are not sending the new anti-IED vehicles (MRAPs)
and other support they so desperately need. Rubbish. Today’s vote is
not about that. General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will make
certain that essential equipment arrives.

“Today’s
vote must be seen as a referendum on this President’s refusal to listen
to a majority of Americans and a majority of Congress, who want him to
end the combat mission and implement the Iraq Study Group’s
recommendations on training, counter-insurgency, and enhanced
diplomatic and economic efforts in the region.

“I
support our troops and I refuse to be manipulated. My ‘no’ vote on the
Iraq Supplemental is a vote to move past the fractured politics on Iraq
and restore some sanity and bipartisanship as Congress confronts the
serious threats of the 21st century.”

May 24, 2007

Treat the problem of the 12 million with benign neglect.
Their children born here are American citizens; the parents of these
children will pass away.

If
border-enforcement can be made to work (and the implausible premise of
the "grand bargain" is that it can--indeed, that it will work so well it can hold off a new wave of illegals lured by amnesty) the problem of the 12 million diminishes gradually, steadily over time. Eventually, it disappears.

Yes, but - I thought that one rationale for the necessity of a comprehensive solution was that with increased workplace compliance, many of these 12 million would be thrown out of work.

Now, the result may be that they self-deport, and perhaps that is what George Will has in mind. But he doesn't seem to be saying so, unless by "the parents of these
children will pass away" he means "pass away back to Mexico or other foreign climes".

I think this notion is a non-starter.

I UNLOCK MY BRAIN: Or, don't have strict workplace enforcement in the new bill - try the Fence First border controls Mickey has only been talking about forever, evaluate that, and see where that takes us.

Skeptics will say that without workplace enforcement the US will remain a jobs magnet and no fence can be effective. But why can't we find out?

Dale Franks from the right and Oliver Willis from the left have a helpful exchange on the merits and likely consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq. Let me just pick this:

Dale:

First, I'm wondering what you think the result of an
American withdrawal would be? And we really have to ask that about two
spheres, the internal Iraqi results, and the effect on America's
security.

Oliver:

There will be a bloody fight within Iraq for control of that nation.
Whether that will be bloodier than the current civil war, I can't say.
But it will be a bloody confrontation without the added carnage of
American troops. On the domestic front, it will be better to have our
troops not playing - essentially - pattycake with Iraqi forces who
would just as soon betray them. Instead we would be back on track
hunting down Al Qaeda and their affiliates instead of nation building.
The postwar plans, if you can call them that, thought we would prop up
a guy like Chalabi and Iraq would have some kind of democracy
(everybody remember Bush's second inaugural speech?). That isn't going
to happen. They want Sharia law. They don't want a secular, progressive
republic. They'll pick what they want.

One of my questions is, who are the "they" that want Sharia law - a majority of Iraqis, or a majority of the Iraqis with guns?

If the civil war is truly intractable the answer may not matter much, but it seems to be worth knowing whether we failed because we were outfought or outvoted.

As to the notion that we will witness a violent civil war without intervention from Turkey, Iran, or Saudi Arabia - who knows?

Bush has created a disaster and I have no confidence in his judgment as to a solution, but I am not exactly sold on cut-and-run, either.

The Capitulation Bill: "Obviously it's a good move"

The crazy thing about the fight is
that Democratic insiders are convinced that capitulation is the right
strategy. They actually believe that this will put pressure on the
Republicans in the fall, and that standing up to Bush is a bad idea.

Not quoted was a Dem leader saying "Bush was the only guy in the room, so we surrendered to him. If only there had been a representative of the insurgency present, we would surely have stood up to Bush and caved in to the appropriate party."

No doubt! And had a Chinese take-out delivery guy showed up at the critical juncture, maybe we'd be drafting bills in Chinese. (You do know I'm making that quote up about surrendering to the insurgency, right? At least, I hope I am.)

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving
Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the
financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White
House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were
wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them
than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing
to Mr. Bush.

Greg Sargent reacts:

Oooooooooooooo, scary! If we didn't give Bush his way, the White House would have criticized us!

I don't know what to say, other than, the party of defeat lost. I am still hoping for a vibrant two-party system in which neither party is insane (but I quit holding my breath a long time ago.)

Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Six in 10 Americans surveyed say the United States should have
stayed out of Iraq, and more than three in four say that things are
going badly there — including nearly half who say things are going very
badly, the poll found.

Still, the majority of Americans support continuing to finance the war, as long as the Iraqi government meets specific goals.

MORE: Let's reprise Jack Balkin's thoughts when the Dems surprised everyone (not) by folding up on the Military Commissions bill last fall. Pose and fold - please let's stop being surprised.

STILL MORE: I have a separate post on the in or out exchange between Dale franks and Oliver Willis.

WHOZAT? What's in a name? Tim F of John Cole's Balloon Juice wonders who Tim Fox is. Good question - I would see an opthomalogist to check my vision, especially if I thought I could spell it.

As to the cause of my error we will never know, but if I had to guess, I would offer that I knew a "John Fox" once, and apparently managed to run that together with "Tim F. of John Cole's...".

Or maybe Tim F is just sly like a fox. Or great looking. Well, at least I don't have any old acquaintances named "John Flop".

Monica Goodling testified yesterday to a House committee investigating the dismissals of eight US attorneys. The mystery of her demand for immunity seems to be solved - she may have violated the law in probing the political background of DoJ careerists:

Ms. Goodling acknowledged repeatedly that she had improperly sought
to gauge the political leanings of applicants when she reviewed résumés
for nonpartisan jobs or promotions, including posts as assistant United States attorneys and immigration judges or for temporary assignments at Justice headquarters.

She
said she had done Google or Nexis searches on job candidates or
searched their names on campaign-finance databases to see if they might
have given money to Republican or Democratic candidates. She also
pressed applicants’ references, at times, to ferret out the political
background of the job candidates they were endorsing.

“There
were times I crossed the line probably in my reference calls” by asking
political questions, Ms. Goodling told the committee.

Political
factors are routinely considered for some jobs at the Justice
Department, like United States attorneys or senior posts, like the
heads of the litigating divisions.

But civil service rules
prohibit such questions when federal agencies are hiring or promoting
staff members for career positions. Violations could be unlawful,
although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said.
Two internal investigative units have begun an inquiry into Ms.
Goodling’s screening practices.

OK. And I actually think this bit from above makes sense, but I would love a better explanation:

Violations could be unlawful,
although probably not a crime, Justice Department officials have said.

I guess that means that violations would be punished with dismissal but not prosecution, but still - why am I guessing, and shouldn't the Times provide a bit of an explanation? This notion that Ms. Goodling broke the law without committing a crime is a bit subtle. And why her desire for immunity if she did not commit a crime?

More mysteries:

She told lawmakers that she could not be precise about how many
hiring decisions were influenced by inappropriate political
considerations, though at one point she said it probably involved fewer
than 50 jobs.

She provided details on only one case, an applicant
for a position as assistant United States attorney in the District of
Columbia. She blocked the hiring of Seth Adam Meinero after determining
the candidate was a Democrat. “I think that when I did look at that
résumé, I made a snap judgment, and I regret it,” she said.

She was ultimately bypassed and Mr. Meinero was hired, Justice officials have said.

May 23, 2007

The question of the day: Just how much of the $500 million sunken
treasure found in the Atlantic last weekend belongs to Democratic
presidential candidate John Edwards?

I put a call in to Edwards' campaign yesterday morning to find out, but I haven't heard back yet.

The reality? The populist one-term senator will get an undisclosed piece of the action from the sunken 17th-century galleon.

The ship, laden with gold and silver, was found at the bottom of
the Atlantic by a little-known exploration company, Florida-based Odyssey Marine Research (OMR - Cramer's Take - Stockpickr - Rating).

Even less well known is who owns OMR.

Biggest shareholder: New York-based Fortress Investments, a
private equity and hedge fund manager. Senior adviser and major
investor: John Edwards.

Edwards' personal financial disclosures show he's an investor
in the exclusive Drawbridge Global Macro Fund, which owns the 9.9%
stake in OMR.

Ten percent of $500 million. After costs, of course.

The NY Times covered this shipwreck and salvage operation a few days ago, noting the special handwringing by archaeologists concerned that profiteering corporations were privatizing history. I guess that is just part of the emerging (submerging?) Two Americas:

Kevin Crisman, an associate professor in the nautical archaeology program at Texas A&M University, said salvage work on shipwrecks constituted “theft of public history and world history.”

He
said the allure of treasure hidden under the sea seemed to blind the
public to the ethical implications. “If these guys went and planted a
bunch of dynamite around the Sphinx, or tore up the floor of the
Acropolis, they’d be in jail in a minute,” Mr. Crisman said.

Anticipating such comments, John Morris, the chief executive of
Odyssey, said in a statement: “We have treated this site with kid
gloves, and the archaeological work done by our team out there is
unsurpassed. We are thoroughly documenting and recording the site,
which we believe will have immense historical significance.”

Robert
W. Hoge, a curator at the American Numismatic Society in New York,
questioned the secrecy surrounding the discovery and said that while it
might be perfectly legitimate, the findings would have been better
preserved in the hands of archaeologists.

“Whenever these finds
are made by treasure hunters, their first thought is to sell instead of
preserving,” Mr. Hoge said. “They need to make money because they’re a
corporation with enormous expenses. They’re not there to preserve
history.”

On behalf of private enterprise, let me add that absent the profit incentive this wreck probably would not have been found at all. If anyone has info on the exploration budgets of Texas A&M or the American Numismatic Society, I would be curious to see it.

If it weren't for high dudgeon Mark Kleiman would have no dudgeon at all - in a characteristically restrained and thoughtful post, Mr. Kleiman joins the torture discussion, quoting Abe Lincoln as follows:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

He then adds:

Just substitute "waterboarding" or "sleep deprivation" or "hypothermia" for "slavery." This issue is dividing the actual conservatives from the cowardly
sado-fascists who think it's fine if we imitate the KGB as long as we
don't imitate the Spanish Inquisition. Apparently the sado-fascists
constitute a majority of Republican primary voters.

Hmm. Let's put a few substitute words in Abe's mouth:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for capital punishment, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

Or:

Whenever I hear anyone arguing for abortion, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.

My point - there are any number of pro-lifers or death penalty opponents who believe the state is sanctioning murder yet have come to terms with the possibility that not all the folks who disagree with them are monsters. If Mr. Kleiman really believes that a majority of Republican primary voters are "sado-fascists", I would note that he is misunderestimating the problem; perhaps he ought to get a ticket to Canada.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Most Americans and a majority of people in Britain, France and South Korea say torturing terrorism suspects is justified at least in rare instances, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

...The polling, in the United States and eight of its closest allies, found that in Canada, Mexico and Germany people are divided on whether torture is ever justified. Most people opposed torture under any circumstances in Spain and Italy.

I suggest a ticket to sunny Spain, then. Here are more polls from ABC News, and Harris. According to ABC News, roughly 35 to 50 percent of Americans approve of some form of torture or physical abuse, depending on the method in question:

Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post
poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and
authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent
terrorist attacks. Thirty-five percent say torture is acceptable in
some such cases.

There's more of a division, though, on physical abuse that
falls short of torture: Forty-six percent say it's acceptable in some
cases, while 52 percent say not.

Majorities identify three specific coercive practices as
acceptable: sleep deprivation (66 percent call it acceptable), hooding
(57 percent) and "noise bombing" (54 percent), in which a suspect is
subjected to loud noises for long periods.

Far fewer Americans accept other practices. Four in 10 call
it acceptable to threaten to shoot a suspect, or expose a suspect to
extreme heat or cold. Punching or kicking is deemed acceptable by 29
percent. And 16 percent call sexual humiliation — alleged to have
occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad — acceptable in some
cases.

And Harris:

52 percent of all adults believe that the use of torture is justified either often (12%) or sometimes (40%).

I don't see a definition of torture here. However, it appears that at least a third and perhaps more than half of Americans are sado-fascists. Or as an alternative hypothesis, perhaps Mr. Kleiman's rhetoric is overheated, and the rest of us need to wait for the day when he can find the tolerance and calm reason practiced by some of the pro-lifers and death penalty opponents.

But let me add one last point, while Mr. Kleiman packs his bags. George Tenet has said that the CIA enhanced interrogation program has uncovered plots and saved lives. Who knows?

But on the subject of saving lives, if the day comes (and I can not imagine a scenario, but work with me) that a more-or-less innocent life could be saved if I personally agreed to be waterboarded or subject to sleep deprivation or hypothermia, then yes, I will volunteer. Torture me, save a life? Sign me up. I don't know if that meets Abe Lincoln's imagined challenge, but it is the best I can do.

And although I agree to this it is hardly because I think I am a hero (my probable stature vis a vis cheap suitcases was discussed here.) But per this helpful review composed by the always measured Mr. Djerejian, I infer that these three techniques are only transiently ghastly and should not result in permanent harm, whereas the life I saved would be, well, relatively permanent as lives go (Can I save a youngster? Oh, forget I asked...).

I also very much doubt that I would be alone in volunteering for this highly improbable and totally abstract program; I am quite certain Mr. Kleiman would step forward and submit to this in order to save the life of a fellow American, even one of the many sado-fascistic ones.

Of particular note are Lieber’s, and ultimately Lincoln’s, views on the
treatment of prisoners. Article 16 of the code boldly states: "Military
necessity does not admit of cruelty--that is, the infliction of
suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or
wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.” All
forms of cruelty against prisoners are prohibited. Even the code’s
broad acceptance of military necessity does not provide a justification
for torture.

Here are the orders - "terrorists" is not a separate category, but Al Qaeda certainly would not qualify as soldiers. Article 82 seems like the best fit:

Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or
inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without
commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile
army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with
intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the
occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting
themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or
squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are
not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be
treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.

May 22, 2007

Over the weekend Gregory Djerejian joined in the torture discussion with a polemic that arguably works best as a parody of progressive preening; it certainly fails as an attempt at serious or thoughtful debate. Well, I would say that, since I am lumped in with the "frothing right blogospheric goose-steppers" in the fifth paragraph - that served as my cue to more or less tune out thereafter.

But don't make the same mistake or you will miss a dazzling display of illogic and ad hominem! Let me nominate three particularly absurd passages:

First on the matter of John McCain's view of torture, which had started this discussion:

McCain had fought tooth and nail against torture, and reluctantly
conceded the CIA carve-out last year (in a terribly dissapointing bow
to political realism, given his Presidential run) which I'm confident
he'd reverse were he to gain the Presidency.

So let's see - McCain opposed the legalization of torture in 2005 (the Detainees Act), approved a special CIA exception in 2006 (the Military Commissions Act), might flip-flop again if he can gull enough supporters in 2008, and he is the moral titan while I am the flim-flam man? Geez, if I announced that in my secret heart I oppose torture but only take these positions to boost my munificent Google ad revenue, could I be a moral titan too? Tempting... but no.

Here is another candidate for a silly prize; the topic was the issue of forbidding torture and enhance interrogation techniques in the military but having a special exception for the CIA:

...it is quite a lot to ask a 19 year old from Idaho in the middle of
Mesopotamia with his life on the line daily to understand distinctions
between what the CIA can do and the Army, or whether one is an enemy
combatant or a POW, and so on.

My goodness - it is certainly is quite a lot to expect a 19 year old standing in a muddy field to keep straight the various capture and interrogation techniques allowed by the military, the CIA, the Border Patrol, the FBI, the BATF, and the Coast Guard. Not to mention the targeting decisions made by the Air Force, the twists and turns of AMT reform moving through Treasury, and the many problems being dropped into DHS with the new immigration bill.

So I have a suggestion - let's train the soldier to follow US military procedure, doing his job under his orders, and he won't need to worry about that other stuff which is irrelevant to his performance. As a bonus, the military has been doing exactly that for several centuries, so my proposal should not be hard to implement.

As to the capabilities of our man and women in the field - on a daily basis our soldiers are asked to operate under Rules of Engagement requiring them to distinguish hostiles from civilians; often enough we read reports of insurgents firing while shielded by women and children. I believe our soldier have a high capability for dealing with complicated situations in a professional and creditable manner.

One last laugher - the question is whether we should foreswear torture in order to induce our enemies to do the same; I had dismissed that notion with "Check a few beheading videos and tell me whether the enemy really needed our use of torture as their motivater", drawing this reply:

Maguire, alas, misses the point. Of course al-Qaeda will chop off heads
Nick Berg style whenever they deem appropriate. But there will be other
wars, with other foes. Some of our enemies will be just as brutal,
others perhaps less so. Regardless, we need to retain the moral high
ground, so we can proceed with unimpeachable confidence--and so that
not a single credible and serious government can accuse us of
hypocrisy--that only the enemy is torturing, because we are better than
they. Isn't that what this entire struggle is about, finally?
Civilization, versus barbarism? With us ostensibly representing the
former?

There will be other wars, so don't worry about whether torture can save lives in this one! (Tenet says it has, but he would, wouldn't he?) Let's see - someday America may confront an enemy balanced on the moral razor's edge, and that enemy will decide to torture US troops because we have legalized the torture of terrorists (i.e., out-of-uniform operatives of a group, not a nation-state) by our CIA. OK, pencil that onto the list of far-fetched scenarios we will worry about one day.

As I understand the current McCain position, the US government will continue to respect the Geneva Convention with respect to captured enemy soldiers - we are not talking about torturing Iraqi officers or troops here. Furthermore, the US military won't be torturing anyone. Hence, any enemy that is seriously making this moral calculation (as opposed to one that is looking for PR cover to do what they were going to do anyway) would have two reasons to treat our troops as called for by the Geneva Conventions. Our spies and covert operatives are on their own, but that is already true under the current conventions.

As to the ghastly prospect that we will be accused of hypocrisy - oh, gee. We robbed this country from the Indians, enslaved blacks for a century and oppressed them for another, fire-bombed Dresden, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, overthrew Allende, supported the contras, killed babies in Iraq with the US-led UN sanctions, caused civilian casualties in Iraq - for America's enemies the rhetorical cupboard will never be bare.

However, if Mr. Djerejian is worried that he will have a heavy go of it as an American Torturer in the fashionable cocktail parties of the Upper West Side or the Hamptons, this button may help. Oops, this one.

SELF AWARENESS MOMENT: The comedy continues in an UPDATE:

Maguire has responded to Sullivan (scroll to bottom), and writes, "I question "routine", and "cadre" seems awfully melodramatic - can't we just call it a Brute Squad?" I'm guessing we're not going to have a serious discussion here...

Hmm, I thought the decision about a serious discussion was made with "frothing Storm Troopers of the decadent Bushitlerburton Regime", or whatever he wrote. I am so sorry if I can't take this mixture of melodrama, ad hominem, and fantasy seriously, but I firmly believe I am treating it with the proper respect.

I infer from Mr. Djerejian's vision of a Moral Apocalypse ("Civilization, versus barbarism?!") that he is enthralled by the early rhetoric of the pro-life movement, or of death penalty opponents. Over the years, those groups have learned that demonizing the folks who disagree doesn't advance their own cause; perhaps a day will come when Sullivan and Djerejian learn similar restraint.

MORE: Mr. Djerejian's ongoing desire to engage with an unreconstructed storm trooper (or to preen before his new progressive audience) is not matched by my desire to feign an interest in his ad hominems and absurdities.

The NY Times has a story covering the formal entrance of Bill Richardson into the Presidential race with a weird Hillary-centric angle:

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico
formally kicked off his bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential
nomination yesterday, highlighting his Hispanic roots and wealth of
experience and issuing a forceful call to end American involvement in Iraq.

Breaking with some of his fellow candidates, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the war, Mr. Richardson pledged to “leave no troop behind in Iraq.”

Mrs. Clinton has suggested that if elected president, she would keep a limited American military force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda and deter Iranian aggression.

And why single out Ms. Clinton? Surely John Edwards and Barack Obama have positions on this, yes? Does Mr. Richardson's view (which seems daft to me, but I am not his target audience) distinguish him from the other leading Dem candidates? Why pick on Hil?

For starters, last fall Mr. Obama called for a gradual reduction in our forces in Iraq but seemed to expect to leave some behind for training and special operations. From the AP:

CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama,
who is contemplating a run for the presidency, on Monday called for a
"gradual and substantial" reduction of U.S. forces from Iraq that would
begin in four to six months.

...

Obama was careful not to set a specific timetable for withdrawal of troops or suggest troop levels.

"We cannot compromise on the safety of our troops, and we should be willing to adjust to realities on the ground," he said.

He proposed redeploying troops to Northern Iraq and to other countries in the region.

Well - if Mr. Richardson is the candidate most stridently opposed to continued US involvement in Iraq, the Times ought to say so - it's not as if Hillary is the only major Dem candidate.

Twin brothers Raymon and Richard Miller are the father and uncle to a
3-year-old little girl. The problem is, they don't know which is which.
Or who is who.

The identical Missouri twins say they were unknowingly having
sex with the same woman. And according to the woman's testimony, she
had sex with each man on the same day. Within hours of each other.

... a paternity test in this case could not help. The test showed that
both brothers have over a 99.9 percent probability of being the daddy—
and neither one wants to pay the child support. The result of the test
has not only brought to light the limits of DNA evidence, it has also
led to a three-year legal battle, a Miller family feud and a little
girl who may never know who her real father is.

May 20, 2007

Here is an interesting take on the immigration debate from a blogger utterly unknown to me - author Tom Veal argues that the proposed bill will be ineffective on national security grounds, so we can afford to scrap it.

I am especially intrigued by the costs and fines associated with the "Z" visa. In the initial summary, we got this:

2 —
Undocumented immigrants and their families could get new "Z'' visas
good for four years, but renewable indefinitely, by paying a $5,000 fee
per head of household. After eight years, holders of Z visas could
apply for permanent legal residence — a green card — by returning to
their home countries and paying another $4,000 penalty.

However, a White House spokesman used the phrase "up to $5,000", although it is not clear he was discussing the "Z" visa:

Stanzel stressed that immigrants would be required to pay a fine of up
to $5,000 if they want to apply for a green card to become a legal
resident, although that fine is not for failure to pay taxes.

The relevant section of the bill *SEEMS* to be section 6, starting on page 260, which discusses "Z" immigrants. I don't see anything about $5,000, but I do see this on page 265:

(6) Fees and Penalties-910 (A) Processing Fees.1112 (i) An alien making an initial application for Z13 nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay a14 processing fee in an amount sufficient to recover the15 full cost of adjudicating the application, but no more16 than $1,500 for a single Z nonimmigrant.1718 (ii) An alien applying for extension of his Z19 nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay a20 processing fee in an amount sufficient to cover21 administrative and other expenses associated with22 processing the extension application, but no more23 than $1,500 for a single Z nonimmigrant.2425 (B) Penalties.2627 (i) An alien making an initial application for Z-128 nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay, in29 addition to the processing fee in subparagraph (A), a30 penalty of $1,000.3132 (ii) A Z-1 nonimmigrant making an initial application33 for Z-1 nonimmigrant status shall be required to pay34 a $500 penalty for each alien seeking Z-2 or Z-335 nonimmigrant status derivative to the Z-1 applicant.3637 (iii) An alien who is a Z-2 or Z-3 nonimmigrant and38 who has not previously been a Z-1 nonimmigrant,39 and who changes status to that of a Z-140 nonimmigrant, shall in addition to processing fees be41 required to pay the initial application penalties42 applicable to Z-1 nonimmigrants.

I am struggling with the math to make that add to $5,000; presumably I am missing something, or the original example (which mentioned "head of household") assumed some number of dependents.

May 19, 2007

John McCain got props all over for his principled stand against torture at the recent Republican debate. The LA Times:

IT WASN'T AN edifying spectacle: a group of middle-aged white guys
competing with one another to see who could do the best impersonation
of Jack Bauer, torture enthusiast and the central character on Fox's
hit show "24."

In
Tuesday's Republican presidential primary debate, Fox News moderator
Brit Hume — who appears to have been watching too much "24" himself —
raised what he described as "a fictional but we think plausible
scenario involving terrorism and the response to it." He then laid out
the kind of "ticking-bomb" scenario on which virtually every episode of
"24" is premised — precisely the kind that most intelligence experts
consider fictional and entirely implausible.

Imagine, Hume told the candidates, that hundreds of Americans have been
killed in three major suicide bombings and "a fourth attack has been
averted when the attackers were captured … and taken to Guantanamo….
U.S. intelligence believes that another, larger attack is planned…. How
aggressively would you interrogate" the captured suspects?

...In Tuesday's debate, only John McCain and Ron Paul bucked the
collective swooning over enhanced interrogation. Paul mused about the
way that torture has become "enhanced interrogation technique. It
sounds like newspeak," he noted, referring to George Orwell's term for
totalitarian doubletalk in his novel "1984." Paul obviously never got
the memo. For most of the Republican primary candidates, "1984" isn't a
cautionary tale, it's a how-to manual.

Only McCain reminded the audience that "it's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are."

McCain's chest-beating Republican rivals would do well to listen to him...

A Question of TortureExcepting John McCain, Republican candidates for president seem to favor it.

Thursday, May 17, 2007; Page A16

THE REPUBLICAN presidential candidates
were asked at their debate in South Carolina on Tuesday about "a
million-to-one scenario" involving the interrogation of suspected
foreign terrorists. Only one in 10 got it right.

That one would be Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the only presidential candidate who has experienced torture.

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Two Republican front-runners in the
2008 presidential race drew strong criticism from rights groups
on Wednesday after they voiced support for extreme
interrogation methods and an expansion of the Guantanamo prison
in the fight against terrorism.

...

Republican Sen. John McCain, who was tortured while a
prisoner of war in Vietnam, came out against the use of extreme
interrogation methods, saying the United States would harm
itself in the world by agreeing to torture people.

"I think Sen. McCain got it right," said Christopher
Anders, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties
Union. "America's not well served by what's called enhanced
interrogation techniques but what in reality is torture and
abuse."

Bear in mind that such situations basically never happen in real
life, that the U.S. military has asked the producers of “24” to cut
down on the torture scenes. Last week Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S.
commander in Iraq, circulated an open letter to our forces warning that
using torture or “other expedient methods to obtain information” is
both wrong and ineffective, and that it is important to keep the “moral
high ground.”

But aside from John McCain, who to his credit
echoed Gen. Petraeus (and was met with stony silence), the candidates
spoke enthusiastically in favor of torture and against the rule of law.

There is just the smallest of small problems midst the hosannas - McCain actually *supported* the use of torture in the extreme scenario presented by Brit Hume. Roll the debate transcript, and then roll McCain's follow-up with Sean Hannity (my emphasis added):

SEN. MCCAIN: If I knew for sure that they had that kind of
information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that
responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would
take that responsibility.

The use of torture -- we could never
gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world
opinion. We do not torture people.

When I was in Vietnam, one of
the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture
ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and
we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.

It's
not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of
country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on
someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to
know.

It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for
interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be
adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture
people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

To be fair, the WaPo editors alluded to his one in a million qualifier; doubters can read the Hannity exchange:

HANNITY: He just mentioned
the issue of this scenario that Brit Hume brought up about
interrogation. And you took a different stand than some of your
colleagues. Do you want to expand on that a little bit?

MCCAIN: Well, I have the same standard as Colin Powell, General Vessey,
literally every retired military person. It's interesting, the divide
between those who have served in the military and those who haven't.
It's fascinating. I read a letter from Colin Powell when we had the
debate on the floor of the Senate. That's probably why we got 95 votes.In an extreme situation the president takes
responsibility, and we do whatever is necessary to prevent an attack.
Otherwise, we don't torture people. And if you think that you get
accurate information out of torturing people, then I don't think you
know enough about the technique in the situation.

HANNITY:
Let me help you out. But how far can we go in a scenario like that? I
guess this is a difficult question. In other words, we know what
torture is. You can define it if you are cutting off their limbs, if
you are beating them. But how aggressive can we get in ...

MCCAIN: Well, let's talk about waterboarding. That kept coming up. Do you know where that was invented? In the Spanish Inquisition,
the Spanish Inquisition. Do we want to do things that were done in the
Spanish Inquisition except in the most extreme case? I don't think so.

But
the reason why all of these military officers who are leaders, and have
a responsibility, were so worried about this is because if one of our
military people falls into the hands of the enemy, then the enemy will
say, “Well, the United States did it, and we would do it too.” That's
the great concern that those who have the responsibility have.

"The
most extreme cases"? "Otherwise we don't torture people"? McCain was
clear to anyone who wanted to listen. he also did a good job of
regretting torture rather than seeming to relish it, but still - if he
would torture a guy for a million dollars, would he torture him for
five? We already know what he is. And I'm one too - a guy who would endorse torture in extreme scenarios to save lives.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan responds and differs from McCain by an order of magnitude - evidently, the scenario proposed by Brit Hume is now a "one in ten million" chance.

Mr. Sullivan eventually concedes that yes, McCain did in fact support torture in this scenario.

They also mock him as a "saint." He isn't. He's an
American. Americans don't torture people. Or at least they never have
until this war criminal president took over.

"Americans don't torture people"? Geez, we will need to re-write the currently grim history of any number of police departments. Let's start with Chicago.
OK, it is not legal today, but has torture really been illegal and
unutilized throughout our history? I'm surprised to be informed of
this.

Perhaps Mr. Sullivan means that the US military does not torture
captured soldiers. Fine, but the legal status of these captured
terrorists is a key part of the dispute. Let's flash back to the Civil
War for some general orders:

Men, or squads of men, who
commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or
plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being
part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing
continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to
their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the
semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character
or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public
enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the
privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as
highway robbers or pirates.

Human rights groups called the vote to approve the bill “dangerous”
and “disappointing.” Critics feared that it left the president a large
loophole by allowing him to set specific interrogation techniques.

Senators
Graham, McCain and Warner rebutted that vociferously, arguing in floor
statements, as well as in a colloquy submitted into the official
record, that the measure would in no way give the president the
authority to authorize any interrogation tactics that do not comply
with the Detainee Treatment Act and the Geneva Conventions, which bar
cruel and inhuman treatment, and that the bill would not alter American
obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

“The conventions are preserved intact,” Mr. McCain promised his colleagues from the floor.

McCain opposes torture but supported this bill, described by Mr. Sullivan as a "disgraceful cave-in by the Congress".
Either Mr. Sullivan is misinformed or Sen. McCain is blowing smoke -
I'm not sure from whom I should be taking guidance here.

A few more points:

But what Reynolds and Maguire and others support is the permanent
routine use of torture, legally protected, and a cadre of professional
CIA torturers trained to do it on a regular basis.

I question "routine", and "cadre" seems awfully melodramatic - can't we just call it a Brute Squad?

They support any techniques that the president chooses, (that was in
the law passed last year). That was the position of all the other
candidates bar Paul and McCain. It is light years away from McCain's
position...

Well,
McCain told Hannity he would use waterboarding in extreme cases, so I'm
confused - does Mr. Sullivan think McCain will take responsibility for
torturing someone and then choose a method (as the other candidates
would), or will McCain spin a Wheel of Misfortune and leave the choice
to fate?

Thousands of guilty - but mainly innocent - people have been
tortured by the U.S. these past few years, and scores have been
tortured to death. (Yes, 80 percent of those abused and tortured in Abu
Ghraib under Rumsfeld's directives were innocent. According to the
Pentagon.)

Which
is why there seems to be a consensus that the military should follow
their stricter rules and the CIA should have special latitude in
special cases.

Sorry, Tom. I'm glad you're discovering a conscience.

Well,
I don't recall losing my conscience, and I am hazy as to why this post
is evidence that I have re-discovered it, but I do thank Mr. Sullivan
for attending so carefully to it on my behalf.

As best I can tell, McCain thinks torture is deplorable but
sometimes appropriate; that seemed similar to, for example, Rudy
Giuliani, who answered as follows in the debate:

MR. GIULIANI: In the hypothetical that you gave me, which assumes
that we know there's going to be another attack and these people know
about it, I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to
use every method they could think of. It shouldn't be torture, but
every method they can think of --

MR. HUME: Water-boarding?

MR.
GIULIANI: -- and I would -- and I would -- well, I'd say every method
they could think of, and I would support them in doing that because
I've seen what -- (interrupted by applause) -- I've seen what can
happen when you make a mistake about this, and I don't want to see
another 3,000 people dead in New York or any place else.

Why that answer was not acceptable to Mr. Sullivan when McCain's answer was mystifies me, but I did not see the live tape - perhaps Giuliani did not appear to be sufficiently aggrieved while saying this?

The NY Times does some legwork to aggregate contractor deaths in Iraq:

WASHINGTON, May 18 — Casualties among private contractors in Iraq
have soared to record levels this year, setting a pace that seems
certain to turn 2007 into the bloodiest year yet for the civilians who
work alongside the American military in the war zone, according to new
government numbers.

At least 146 contract workers were killed in Iraq in the first three
months of the year, by far the highest number for any quarter since the
war began in March 2003, according to the Labor Department, which
processes death and injury claims for those working as United States
government contractors in Iraq.

That brings the total number of
contractors killed in Iraq to at least 917, along with more than 12,000
wounded in battle or injured on the job, according to government
figures and dozens of interviews.

The numbers, which have not
been previously reported, disclose the extent to which contractors —
Americans, Iraqis and workers from more than three dozen other
countries — are largely hidden casualties of the war, and now are
facing increased risks alongside American soldiers and marines as
President Bush’s plan to increase troop levels in Baghdad takes hold.

A bit later in the story we hear from the chap whose picture graces the Times website:

Gordon Dreher, 48, who drove a fuel truck supplying American troops
in Iraq, said he and other drivers faced almost constant attacks from
insurgents.

“I’ve been shot at, had my truck blown out from
under me, had an I.E.D. hit about six feet away from me, and lost part
of my hearing,” he said, referring to an improvised explosive device.
“I’m used to getting shot at now, having tracer rounds hit off my
truck. I got ambushed twice on one convoy run.”

Mr. Dreher broke
his back in January from driving fast on rough roads, and is back home
in Brick, N.J., awaiting surgery. “When they do a surge, they need more
fuel for choppers and tanks,” he said. “My buddies who are still there
tell me that they have been getting spanked pretty good lately.”

I hear a song coming on - He's been from Basra to Numaniyah, Ramadi to Samawah... and he's still willing.

St. Luke teaches us “to whom much is given, much is expected.” Am I
hearing that admonition—and responding to it in a generous way? Do I
have a true appreciation of the uniqueness and goodness of others? More
questions than answers, I’m afraid.

One particular day provided
some clarity. September 11, 2001. I don’t think the English language
has yet found the words to describe the pain and anguish we felt that
day. And yet we learned much about each other. The bravery of the first
responders who went up the stairs of burning buildings. The heroic
selfless souls on United flight #93. The patience of tens of thousands
of drivers who left the devastated areas in an orderly way.

I have not honked my car horn since September 11 as a gesture of respect to all of them.

Folks who followed the Plame case missed an opportunity for a quick aneurysm last week when Tim Russert phoned in to the MSNBC morning show formerly hosted by Don Imus to hawk his latest scribblings to guest host David Gregory. Talk about Frequently Unasked Questions! I know you are wondering - Did Gregory ask Russert a few follow-ups about his role in the Libby case? Did Russert ask Gregory a few follow-ups? C'mon, these are NBC Newsies, you know the answer!

I am proud to report that I kept my poise while listening on my car radio. I did not honk, partly in memory of the Johnstown flood and partly to listen for gunshots from other listeners who could not get to their radio dial quickly enough. And I did not learn much, other than Tim's dad was a great guy and ought to be an inspiration to all of us.

May 18, 2007

Indeed, those who would glibly declare "whatever"
as they jump on the "enhanced interrogation techniques" bandwagon would
do well to weigh people like Krulak and Hoar's thoughts on the matter,
for they have far more standing, gravitas, and insight into the issue
than such bloggers, not to mention Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani (this
is nothing personal to Tom M, with whom I've been friendly, I just
happened to pop over to his site and caught sight of the 'whatevs'
post, and I guess it struck me as rather glib).

No worries - it struck me as glib, too, but that is my current substitute for proper time management. Gregory Djerejian has been a somewhat lonely voice of reason on the right for a while now, but I continue to hope we will end up on the same page again one day.

When I do have time, I hope to respond to this, but my quick take on Krulak/Hoar is, huh?

This is their rebuttal to a system in which the military eschews
enhanced interrogation but the CIA has special dispensation in their
own prisons - that is roughly the scheme that was undone by Abu Ghraib:

As has happened with every other nation that has tried to
engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only
when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every
captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time
bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations
every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree
of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of
command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.

I am surprised to be informed that the US military has such slack discipline - I know that we have fairly complicated Rules of Engagement for troops on patrol, so I know that in even more complicated contexts we have high expectations for their training and professionalism.

More later...

FROM THE TOP: It turns out that I have John McCain on my side in this debate, so I will move forward with vigor.

Kicking off this discussion was this extreme hypothetical posed at the debate by moderator Brit Hume:

The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we
think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it.
Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have
been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A
fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the
Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, where they are being
questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is
planned and could come at any time.

First question to you,
Senator McCain. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held
at Guantanamo Bay for information about where the next attack might be?

Let me provide my quick answer: "Brit, the President faces many tough decisions. This is not one of them - of course I would authorize all means necessary to extract the information in this extreme and unlikely scenario. I don't think a public admission of torture as a policy would help America's image so I would not boast about it, but I would very quietly authorize it in very unusual cases. To echo an earlier President, I think torture should be safe, legal, and rare."

OK, I am not a candidate, so let's cut to a guy who is.

McCain got props for his principled stand against torture (WaPo, LA Times, Andrew Sullivan, Reuters) even though careful readers can see that he favored torture in this extreme case:

SEN. MCCAIN: If I knew for sure that they had that kind of
information, I, as the president of the United States, would take that
responsibility. That is a million-to-one scenario. But only I would
take that responsibility.

The use of torture -- we could never
gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world
opinion. We do not torture people.

When I was in Vietnam, one of
the things that sustained us, as we went -- underwent torture
ourselves, is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and
we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them.

It's
not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of
country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on
someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to
know.

It's about us as a nation. We have procedures for
interrogation in the Army Field Manual. Those, I think, would be
adequate in 999,999 of cases, and I think that if we agree to torture
people, we will do ourselves great harm in the world.

In a one-in-a-million case he would personally authorize torture, and this is a one-in-a-million case. Seems clear, but lest you doubt, here is McCain following up with Sean Hannity (my emphasis):

HANNITY: He just mentioned
the issue of this scenario that Brit Hume brought up about
interrogation. And you took a different stand than some of your
colleagues. Do you want to expand on that a little bit?

MCCAIN: Well, I have the same standard as Colin Powell, General Vessey,
literally every retired military person. It's interesting, the divide
between those who have served in the military and those who haven't.
It's fascinating. I read a letter from Colin Powell when we had the
debate on the floor of the Senate. That's probably why we got 95 votes.In an extreme situation the president takes
responsibility, and we do whatever is necessary to prevent an attack.
Otherwise, we don't torture people. And if you think that you get
accurate information out of torturing people, then I don't think you
know enough about the technique in the situation.

HANNITY:
Let me help you out. But how far can we go in a scenario like that? I
guess this is a difficult question. In other words, we know what
torture is. You can define it if you are cutting off their limbs, if
you are beating them. But how aggressive can we get in ...

MCCAIN: Well, let's talk about waterboarding. That kept coming up. Do you know where that was invented? In the Spanish Inquisition,
the Spanish Inquisition. Do we want to do things that were done in the
Spanish Inquisition except in the most extreme case? I don't think so.

But
the reason why all of these military officers who are leaders, and have
a responsibility, were so worried about this is because if one of our
military people falls into the hands of the enemy, then the enemy will
say, “Well, the United States did it, and we would do it too.” That's
the great concern that those who have the responsibility have.

"Otherwise we don't torture people"? If words have meaning, he is saying that in an extreme situation he might torture someone (Bush issued a signing statement saying the same thing). Fine, with McCain on my side let's move forward.

An issue raised emphasized by McCain is the "Do unto others" rule. First, I am skeptical that our enemies are focused on our behavior, since I have seen these beheading videos even though I am quite sure the US does not behead anyone.

But regardless - we (the civilized war-making nations) already have different rules for people captured in uniform as soldiers (who are meant to be held as prisoners) and people captured out of uniform (who can be shot or tried as spies). Why not just make it clear that the US military does not torture anyone but the CIA might? As a follow-up, we would expect our captured soldiers to be treated as soldiers, and our spies to be treated as spies. On the off chance that our adversaries give a rat's rear area, perhaps that will assure better treatment of our captured soldiers.

A second issue raised by McCain is that we risk alienating world opinion by engaging in torture. Well, yes, especially if we advertise our intention to do so, and especially if we are worried about losing hearts and minds in the finer salons of Europe. I am not at all sure that the US loses stature in, for example, Iraq if it tortures a few known bad guys on a careful and selective basis. Comparisons with the French in Algeria, where (per this estimate), "40 percent of the adult male Muslim population of Algiers (approximately 55,000
individuals) were put through the French interrogation system and either tortured or threatened with torture" would not be applicable - the French method was sure to alienate the locals, but that is hardly what I have in mind.

And what happened to preferring the strong horse? Bernard Lewis mentioned this story recently in the WSJ:

During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many
attacks on American installations and individuals -- notably the attack
on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt
withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnapping of Americans, both
official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one
attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several
others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was
swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers.
The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there
were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the
period of the Lebanese troubles.

A similar version is here - I always thought this was apocryphal, but Prof. Lewis is a believer evidently.

Last thought for now - McCain said "It's about us as a nation." Well, yes - this nation nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and fire-bombed Dresden. Has McCain apologized for that, or does he endorse those decisions? War is hell, partly because it forces bad situations and awful choices. The US military causes friendly fire deaths and civilian casualties, but still we fight.

STRAY: From the original G Djer post excerpted above:

Krulak and Hoar's thoughts on the matter,
... have far more standing, gravitas, and insight into the issue
than such bloggers, not to mention Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani...

Rudy? As a former Federal prosecutor and hands-on mayor who worked closely with the NYPD, I would hardly score Rudy at zero on the strengths and weaknesses of conventional interrogation techniques. One would hope is familiarity with enhanced techniques is minimal.

BREWING: I want to dig up the latest guidebook for enhanced techniques, just so we can all agree on what we are talking about.

The lawyers said any conversations Cheney and the officials had about
Plame with one another or with reporters were part of their normal
duties because they were discussing foreign policy and engaging in an
appropriate "policy dispute." Cheney's attorney went further, arguing
that Cheney is legally akin to the president because of his unique
government role and has absolute immunity from any lawsuit.

U.S.
District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing
-- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters
that would have been beyond the scope of their employment," whether the
statements were true or false?

Put your hand up if you think the judge is accurately summarizing and the reporter is actually capturing the defendants' position - as an illustration, your hand should be raised if you think the defendants were arguing that they had the right to discuss Joe Wilson's tax return, his State Dept personnel file, his mother-in-law's taxes, or anything else.

OK, put your hand down - you're annoying me and embarrassing yourself, because that position is so absurd that it can't be what they meant. Here is the AP version:

The Justice Department has asked Bates to drop an invasion of
privacy count in the suit because government officials cannot be sued
personally for such claims when acting in their official capacity.

"There is nothing these officials could have said that could go beyond the scope of their employment?" asked Bates.

Not
in the context of the Plame affair, replied Justice Department lawyer
Jeffrey Bucholtz. What the suit alleges amounts to a government policy
dispute in which the defendants tried to discredit Plame's husband,
Bucholtz said.

Ahh - "Not
in the context of the Plame affair". The suit does not allege that tax returns and personnel files were discussed, now does it? The judge's apparent hyperbole notwithstanding, the real issue is whether what was actually discussed could reasonably be interpreted as within the scope of official duties; it does not appear from this version that the defendants were making an abstract "Anything Goes" claim.

I belabor this mainly because of the comically over-heated response at the Daily Kos. Big Tent at TalkLeft is more reasonable but drifts away from reality here:

The inquiry is was the Vice President acting in his official capacity
or in his unofficial capacity. If, for example, Cheney ordered Libby to
disclose Plame's identity, he would be ordering him to engage in an
illegal act, and that simply can not be considered an act thought to be
in good faith an official act by Cheney.

Well, one would need to establish at a minimum that Cheney was aware of Ms. Plame's classified status, that she met the other requirements of the IIPA, and that Bush had not delegated to Cheney a de-classification free pass. Seeing as how there were no criminal indictments for leaking her identity, I suspect the facts are not favorable to the Wilsons on these points.

1 — Undocumented
immigrants who came to the United States before Jan. 1, 2007 — an
estimated 12 million — would get immediate, but probationary, legal
status and ability to work and travel if they pass background checks.

2 —
Undocumented immigrants and their families could get new "Z'' visas
good for four years, but renewable indefinitely, by paying a $5,000 fee
per head of household. After eight years, holders of Z visas could
apply for permanent legal residence — a green card — by returning to
their home countries and paying another $4,000 penalty.

3 —
Between 400,000 and 600,000 foreigners would be able to come every year
to work. They could stay for two years on new "Y-1'' visas then return
home for one year and could renew the visas for a total of six years in
the country. They could bring their families with them for one two-year
period.

4 — New Z and Y visas would not take effect until the
Department of Homeland Security had met new border security and
immigration enforcement conditions, including: expanding the Border
Patrol to 18,000 agents; constructing 200 miles of vehicle barriers and
370 miles of fencing along the border; deploying four unmanned aerial
vehicles and 70 ground-based radar and camera systems along border;
establishing a secure identification system to verify workers are
eligible for jobs.

5 — Employers would have to use a new
electronic system to verify new hires are eligible for work within 18
months. Three years after that, all employees would have to have ID
verified through the new system.

6 — The current green card
system would be replaced by a new point system, with applicants getting
credit for English proficiency, job skills, education and family ties.
Spouses and children of U.S. citizens could still qualify for unlimited
number of green cards. Parents of U.S. citizens could get up to 40,000
green cards per year. Spouses and children of permanent legal residents
could get up to 87,000 green cards per year. About 380,000 green cards
would eventually be issued via point system.

7 — Total number of green cards issued per year would be about 1 million, same as current law.

8 — Agricultural workers could get new Y-2A visas good for 10-month stays in the United States every year.

9 — Undocumented immigrants under 30 who came here as children would be eligible for green cards within three years.

I like the spirit of point 4, which requires at least a token effort at enforcement prior to adopting the new visas. It would be nice if the conditions included a requirement that the enforcement be shown to be working.

And I very much wonder why illegals, sorry, undocumenteds would not flood into the country starting now, before the expanded enforcement is in effect, so that they are here and ready for their "Z" visa when the fence is finished. Unlike the immediate temporary pass noted in point 1, which requires a presence here before Jan 1 2007, the "Z" visa (as described in 2) seems to be open to all. Is that an oversight that ought to be fixed, or (more likely) is it merely a problem with the summary? My guess/hope - the "Undocumented immigrants and their families" mentioned in point 2 includes the Jan 1 2007 caveat from point 1, but that was dropped for the summary.

Also - $5,000 is a lot of money, we will hear. And what happens to those who get the temporary pass described in (1) but can't afford the "Z" visa? Do we deport them? As if.

Partisan Dem Senators kept Gonzalez in another news cycle by raising a frivolous question about his 2006 Senate testimony on the NSA program. From the WaPo:

The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales
that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy
inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday
that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest
such a program.

...

Gonzales, testifying for
the first time in February 2006 about the Terrorist Surveillance
Program, which involved eavesdropping on phone calls between the United States
and places overseas, told two congressional committees that the program
had not provoked serious disagreement involving Comey or others.

"None of the reservations dealt with the program that we are talking about today," Gonzales said then.

Four
Democratic senators sent a letter to Gonzales yesterday asking, "do you
stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise
it," prompting the Justice Department's response.

On Wednesday, in a letter to Mr. Gonzales signed by three other
Democratic senators, Mr. Schumer reminded Mr. Gonzales that he had
testified last year that “there has not been any serious disagreement”
about the N.S.A. program and asked about the apparent contradiction.

You testified last year before both the Senate Judiciary
Committee and the House Judiciary Committee about this incident. On
February 6, 2006, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, you were
asked whether Mr. Comey and others at the Justice Department had raised
concerns about the NSA wiretapping program. You stated in response that
the disagreement that occurred was not related to the wiretapping
program confirmed by the President in December 2005, which was the
topic of the hearing. …

We ask for your prompt response to the following question: In light of Mr. Comey’s testimony yesterday, do you stand by your 2006 Senate and House testimony, or do you wish to revise it?

I'll bite - to what program was Gonzalez referring when he limited his comments to "the wiretapping
program confirmed by the President in December 2005"? Was that the same program that DoJ objected to in March 2004? Or was the objectionable March 2004 version Terrorist Surveillance Program 1.0, supplanted by Terrorist Surveillance Program 2.0 after incorporation of the DoJ objections? Or did DoJ object to a specific operational element of TSP 1.0, which was dropped for 2.0?

It is clear from the testimony transcript that Gonzalez gave a heavily caveatted answer which Sen. Schumer found to be baffling and non-responsive:

SCHUMER: I concede all those points. Let me ask you about some specific reports.

It's
been reported by multiple news outlets that the former number two man
in the Justice Department, the premier terrorism prosecutor, Jim Comey,
expressed grave reservations about the NSA program and at least once
refused to give it his blessing. Is that true?

GONZALES: Senator,
here's the response that I feel that I can give with respect to recent
speculation or stories about disagreements.

There has not been
any serious disagreement -- and I think this is accurate -- there has
not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president
has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters
regarding operations which I cannot get into.

I will also say...

SCHUMER:
But there was some -- I'm sorry to cut you off -- but there was some
dissent within the administration. And Jim Comey did express, at some
point -- that's all I asked you -- some reservations.

GONZALES:
The point I want to make is that, to my knowledge, none of the
reservations dealt with the program that we're talking about today.
They dealt with operational capabilities that we're not talking about
today.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you, again, about -- we have limited time.

GONZALES: Yes, sir.

SCHUMER:
It's also been reported that the head of the Office of Legal Counsel,
Jack Goldsmith, respected lawyer and professor at Harvard Law School,
expressed reservations about the program. Is that true?

GONZALES:
Senator, rather than going individual by individual, let me just say
that I think the differing views that have been the subject of some of
these stories did not deal with the program that I'm here testifying
about today.

SCHUMER: But you were telling us that none of these people expressed any reservations about the ultimate program, is that right?

GONZALES:
Senator, I want to be very careful here, because, of course, I'm here
only testifying about what the president has confirmed.

And with
respect to what the president has confirmed, I do not believe that
these DOJ officials that you're identifying had concerns about this
program.

SCHUMER: There are other reports, I'm sorry to -- you're not giving me a yes-or-no answer here. I understand that.

Schumer knew he was being smoke-screened, but they got a headline out of it, so whatever.

While testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February
2006, Mr. Gonzales was asked if Mr. Comey had expressed reservations
about the eavesdropping program. Mr. Gonzales replied, “There has not
been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has
confirmed.” By that, he must have meant the program that included
modifications made after the hospital visit and after Mr. Comey’s
meeting with Mr. Bush.

IN THE INTERESTS OF ACCURACY: The over-excited Times editors say this about the NSA program and the Gonzalez hospital run:

Mr. Comey said the bizarre events in Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital room were
precipitated by a White House request that the Justice Department sign
off on a continuation of the eavesdropping, which started in October
2001. Mr. Comey, who was acting attorney general while Mr. Ashcroft was
ill, refused. Mr. Comey said his staff had reviewed the program as it
was then being run and believed it was illegal.

When the attorney general refused, Mr. Gonzales apparently took part in
a plan to go forward with a program that the Justice Department had
refused to certify as legal.

...What was the administration doing, and what was it willing to continue
to do, that its lawyers concluded was without a legal basis? Without an
answer to that fundamental question, the coverup will have succeeded.

Both editorials would be more accurate (if less forceful) if they noted that the Office of Legal Counsel of the DoJ had, for the previous two and a half years, endorsed the NSA program - it was a change in the lawyers (from Yoo to Goldsmith at OLC) that precipitated this mini-drama, not a change in the program.

I will propose two thought experiments:

1. A Wall Street firm has a reasonably complicated financing structure requiring legal opinions; a typical deal takes about two months to come together, and the firm has done twenty such deals with the blessing of their outside counsel.

Now comes the twenty-first deal, and the law firm informs the Wall Street financiers, forty-eight hours before the scheduled close, that they can't sign the legal opinion. Has the relevant law changed? Nooo. Has the financing structure changed? Nooo. But a new partner at the law firm has looked at the structure and wants the deal tweaked slightly before he can sign off on it.

Take my word for it - there would be Hades to pay for this, and serious questions would be raised about the professionalism and timing of the law firm. Bring the problem sooner, or bring it for the twenty-second deal, but being obstructive at the last minute is not acceptable.

Or let's try an example closer to home for the Times and WaPo editors here - suppose their law firms came to them and informed them that, although no laws had changed, a new partner was worried about some privacy issues, so the Times would have to suspend its website in 48 hours or face dire legal risks.

I promise you - blood would flow at the Times, or wherever it was they finally found tracked down the new lawyer with the new problem.

For my money, Comey's behavior was a joke - he was warned on a Thursday a week ahead of time of a problem with DoJ recertifying the NSA program, sat on the bad news for five days, then sprang it on Gonzalez on Tuesday for a recertification expected on Thursday.

OK, I'll grant that Ashcroft's unexpected illness may have muddled the process - Ashcroft may have planned to meet with Gonzalez on Friday and instead woke up in a hospital. However, nothing in Comey's story suggested he alerted Gonzalez over the weekend or on Monday, and there is a mysterious void in the Wednesday timeline - per Comey, nothing happened all day and then that night Gonzalez rushed to the hospital. Puzzling at best, derelict at worst.

May 16, 2007

Some
issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it
clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully
supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for
torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would
have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or
restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure
that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence
or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of
the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules
of Western justice has no business being president.

...For me, the moral question of torture in many ways settles this race.
Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced
interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight. I was glad
that McCain called these hideous methods by their proper name, and that
Paul described Hume's weasel words as "newspeak." I was surprised to
see Romney so aggressively embrace torture and Gitmo. On reflection,
however, I was being naive again. Romney aims to please. He knew where
he was - South Carolina. You can largely determine his beliefs in
advance by judging the audience he is attempting to win over. For me,
then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain
and Paul. That was quick.

Whatever. I continue to believe that some "enhanced
interrogation techniques" can be distinguished from "torture"; I also strongly suspect that the threat of torture may motivate prisoners to be a bit more forthcoming, so I wonder whether about the trade-off of good PR versus more resolute prisoners that John McCain is promoting here:

Senator John McCain
of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he would not resort to
torture because the United States would lose more in world opinion than
it would gain in information.

“When I was in Vietnam, one of
the things that sustained us, as we went — underwent torture ourselves
— is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were
the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them,” Mr.
McCain said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about
what kind of country we are.”

FWIW, the Times transcript is here, so let's puzzle over this from Mr. Sullivan:

Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11.
Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately
claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was
the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not
Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to
the general issue of blowback.

I suggest Mr. Sullivan hit rewind a third time - I am reading this, following Ron Paul's paean to the Republican history of isolationism:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP.
PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you
ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've
been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in
the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand
the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're
building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're
building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing
this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We
need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if
somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP.
PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and
the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there
because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand
because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since
that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't
think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an
extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone
who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the
attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that
before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September
11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP.
PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach
and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed
the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of
our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that
at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the
world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't
come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and
they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if
we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Well - the specific use of the word "invited" came from the moderator, but Ron Paul twice went to the moral equivalence argument with his ruminations about what the US might do if China were putting bases in the Gulf of Mexico. And what a great question! Does anyone else remember Jack Kennedy blowing up some buildings in Moscow as a response to the Cuban missile crisis? Maybe Ron Paul could expound on that.

MORE: I risk losing my bloggers card if I fail to note that Jack Bauer of "24" tortures people routinely, and almost always gets prompt, reliable, life-saving intel. Surely this tells me something about the attitudes and values of the American people, or at least some of us?

And since torture works, sometimes, this is a real issue - I would love to see the Dem candidates tackle this at one of their debates (as if!). Would they ever contemplate torturing a terrorist, presumably after first reading him his rights and apologizing for the many indignities the United States has heaped upon his country and the world? Imagine my suspense.

Former DoJ Number 2 James Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the dramatic circumstances under which the NSA warrantless surveillance program was not re-authorized in March 2004. The Times has coverage; Orin Kerr links to a transcript; and John Hinderaker of Powerline has a good defense of the Administration. However The Captain, in an Update, does not buy the PowerStory.

Pretty cryptic, huh? Well, follow a link!

Meanwhile, the WaPo editors present their nightmare version of events, which I dispute:

AMES B. COMEY, the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the
Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an
account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have
been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source. The episode
involved a 2004 nighttime visit to the hospital room of then-Attorney
General John D. Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House
counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff.
Only the broadest outlines of this visit were previously known: that
Mr. Comey, who was acting as attorney general during Mr. Ashcroft's
illness, had refused to recertify the legality of the administration's
warrantless wiretapping program; that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had
tried to do an end-run around Mr. Comey; that Mr. Ashcroft had rebuffed
them.

Mr. Comey's vivid depiction, worthy of a Hollywood script,
showed the lengths to which the administration and the man who is now
attorney general were willing to go to pursue the surveillance program.
First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he
had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal
approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of
the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance
without Justice's authorization. Only in the face of the prospect of
mass resignations -- Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and
most likely Mr. Ashcroft himself -- did the president back down.

Let's see - we are told that Gonzalez and Card "tried to coerce a man in intensive care". Is that based on anything at all? Comey certainly did not mention any threats in describing their contact with Ashcroft, nor did he mention any attempted coercion of himself.

We are also told that Card and Gonzalez "were willing to defy the conclusions of
the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance
without Justice's authorization", but eventually the President backed down. Come again? The program did in fact proceed for several weeks without DoJ approval while changes were made. Nothing in Comey's story tells us that Card and Gonzalez were unwilling to contemplate the changes sought by the DoJ; the problem seems to have been one of timing.

And to round out the timeline - Comey and Ashcroft apparently discussed a DoJ Office of Legal Counsel review of the program on Thursday, March 4. The review had raised problems with the program and Ashcroft concurred with Comey that it should not be re-authorized the following Thursday, March 11.

Ashcroft was then rushed to a hospital that Thursday night; per his account Comey informed the White House about the problem with re-authorization the following Tuesday:

The attorney general was taken that very afternoon to George Washington Hospital, where he went into intensive care and remained there for over a week. And I became the acting attorney general. And over the next week -- particularly the following week, on Tuesday -- we communicated to the relevant parties at the White House and elsewhere our decision that as acting attorney general I would not certify the program as to its legality and explained our reasoning in detail, which I will not go into here. Nor am I confirming it's any particular program.

We then have radio silence until Wednesday night around 8, when Gonzalez and Card make their run to the hospital. One wonders what, if anything, transpired earlier on Wednesday and Tuesday. One presumes that Card and Gonzalez spent a bit of their time on Tuesday and Wednesday exploring their alternatives, but Comey says nothing about that - odd, since I can't imagine who Card and Gonzalez might have been talking to that did not include Comey. Did Card and Gonzalez really just let it slide until Wednesday night? Hard to believe.

To recap: On March 4 Comey and Ashcroft decide to decline to re-authorize a program Ashcroft had been approving regularly since Sept 2001. Comey sits on this news until the following Tuesday, but the White House does not commence to scramble for alternatives until Wednesday night.

I think we are missing a lot here.

MORE: But then again! The WaPo has a better timeline - Ashcroft's gall bladder was removed on Tuesday, May 9, so one might guess that no one at the White House thought it made sense to engage him on that day.

May 11, 2007

The NY Times, evidently having a fit of pique about news not broken there, front-pages a story about Mitt Romney's vigorous effort "to Put Skeptics’ Doubts to Rest" without any mention of his gaffe sci-fi fantasy involving seven-year "marriages" in France.

By way of contrast the WaPo has circled back to this in two separate columns (Blogs? Who can tell these days?) by Howard Kurtz and Perry Bacon Jr. That said, the WaPo does owe us, since it was Mr. Bacon who presented the original Romney revelation with a perfectly straight face.

Was it only Wednesday we were mocking Edwards' claim that he joined a hedge fund in order to learn about financial markets and their connection to poverty? The WaPo goes beyond mere mocking and points out (as I could have, darn it) that Fortress Investment Group is a player in sub-prime loans:

The hedge fund that employed John Edwards
markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there,
becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has
pilloried in his presidential campaign.

Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina
said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in
predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was
assured it was not.

...

Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his
hiring that some of Fortress's private equity holdings did lend to
start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending
practices. But he could not recall whether the firm's partners told him
it had a major stake in Green Tree.

"Those are the things I
remember," he said. "They may have told me more." Had he learned that
Fortress owned a loan servicer with a history of predatory lending
practices, he said, "I would have asked some very specific questions
about it."

Fortress's growing role in the subprime lending market
provides a second contrast between the firm's business practices and
the positions Edwards has taken as the presidential candidate who has
made poverty a major campaign theme. The Washington Post reported last month
that Fortress's partners and its foreign investors benefited from the
kind of offshore tax breaks Edwards has criticized as a candidate.

So let's see - he wanted to learn about the link between financial markets and poverty, but forgot to ask the follow-up questions about his employer's involvement in sub-prime lending. His curiosity failed him at a critical juncture, on might say,

Jiminy - Edwards voted for war in 2002 on the basis of faulty intelligence, took a job in 2005 on the basis of faulty intelligence - when does he start with the tough follow-up questioning?

Fred Barnes, writing in the hidden temple of the Wall Street Journal, ponders Bush's legacy and the fate of the Republican Presidential hopefuls come 2008. His launching point is the grim outcomes achieved by Truman in 1952, Eisenhower in 1960, and Johnson in 1968, none of whom could push their successor to victory. Truman and Johnson were burdened by difficult and unpopular wars, obviously, as is Bush.

But Reagan managed it in 1988! And this despite a grim 1987 marred by Iran-Contra and a bout with cancer (Barnes has forgotten the 1987 stock market crash, as will we.)

So what, Barnes wonders, might Bush do? Push for comprehensive immigration reform! Ahhh! No, he is not kidding - this will demonstrate Bush's bipartisan leadership ability and take off the table a puzzle that would otherwise divide Reps in 2008.

Whatever. Barnes sounded forth the trumpet that will never blow defeat in May 2006, and where are we now?

My guess - if there is still a Republican base left to antagonize and dispirit, a "comprehensive" reform which looks like amnesty will do it.

May 09, 2007

John Edwards has been vexed by questions about his cash-in stint with a hedge fund, but he had a ready answer for the AP:

WASHINGTON — Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday
he worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn
about financial markets and their relationship to poverty — and to make
money, too.

In an interview with The
Associated Press, the former North Carolina senator said his yearlong,
part-time position with Fortress Investment Group helped his
understanding of the connection, but he has more to learn.

Edwards has made eradicating poverty a focus of his second White House bid.

Edwards,
a multimillionaire after years as a trial lawyer, would not disclose
how much he got paid for a year of consulting beginning in October
2005. He said the amount will be revealed when he releases his
financial disclosure forms due May 15.

Asked if he had to join a hedge fund to learn about financial markets, Edwards replied, "How else would I have done it?"

He
said he considered going to an investment firm such as Goldman Sachs,
but Fortress was the most natural fit. Presented with the suggestion
that he could have taken a university class instead, he said, "That's
true."

"It was primarily to learn, but making
money was a good thing, too," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said
in an hourlong interview with AP reporters and editors.

Left unreported by the AP - John Edwards built his 28,000 square foot home to learn about homelessness in America, and he got a $400 haircut to learn about the emerging baby-boomer crisis of male pattern baldness.

Must we endure 18 more months of this (and possibly four, or even eight years)? One of Bill Clinton's many infuriating aspects was his unshakable belief that that he could sell any BS, however outrageous, to the rubes. If Mr. Edwards is positioning himself as the say-anything heir to Mr. I Didn't Inhale, I can't bear to watch.

That said, although Edwards' answer is rubbish, his concept is sound - there really are socially responsible investment funds out there and I suspect an earnest pol could learn something about the interplay between financial markets and good intentions by working at one.

However, Edwards chose to go to work for Fortress Investment Group (10-K), a perfectly respectable and credible group that makes no claim at all to emphasizing social responsibility in its investing.

Whatever. Edwards wanted to add to his pile, and there is nothing wrong with that - I am quite sure $15-50 million (est.) ain't what is used to be. But please don't tell us this was just an exercise in continuing education.

May 06, 2007

The Times reporters were left scratching their heads after Hilary left the Senate floor recently:

WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she
supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own
political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront
the White House.

Talking to reporters after her floor speech in a mostly empty Senate
chamber, Mrs. Clinton indicated that her view was that rescinding the
original vote would mean that troops would be out as of October. “They
have no authority to continue,” she said. “That is the point.”

That is absurd - even the folks who call for out troops to be withdrawn understand that many US soldiers will be left behind to assist in training the Iraqis. No one, including Hillary, is calling for a 100% US withdrawal by October 2007, her own mouth notwithstanding:

Later, however, her aides said Mrs. Clinton was not seeking a total
withdrawal of troops from Iraq, or a quick pullout that could put
troops at risk. They said she had called for a phased pullout that
would leave a reduced American force to pursue terrorist cells in Iraq,
support the Kurds and conduct other missions — a position she continued
to support, her aides said.

Odd that despite her touted position on the Armed Services Committee, she can't remember her own position on troop withdrawals.

And let's say it again - pulling out US troops may end US involvement in the war, but it won't end the war. If it were that easy, the war in Darfur would be over, yes?

STYLE WATCH: Will the Times continue to present her as "Hillary Rodham Clinton", consistent with her New York packaging? Or will they adopt the national branding and go with "Hillary Clinton"? Another toughie, as the dual local/national roles vex both candidate and newspaper.

I was actually reading Frank Rich this morning, which is a clear indicator of the depths to which my morale has sunk, and I stumbled across this claim that the election was a mandate for the cut and run crowd:

Unlike Vietnam, Iraq is not in the past: the war escalates even as all
this finger-pointing continues. Very little has changed between the
fourth anniversary of “Mission Accomplished” this year and the last.
Back then, President Bush cheered an Iraqi “turning point”
precipitated by “the emergence of a unity government.” Since then,
what’s emerged is more Iraqi disunity and a major leap in the death
toll. That’s why Americans voted in November to get out.

This claim that the November election result was a call to disarm has been made elsewhere - I noticed it in a recent Times story and heard it at a recent dinner party, but I can't find links to either one.

But not so fast! Back before the ballots were cast, the Dem leadership was quite clear in their strategy - their pre-election plan was to refrain from offering a plan on Iraq, so that voters could focus on Bush's incompetence rather than Dem disunity and fecklessness. This was a perfectly sensible strategy akin to offering the American public an opportunity to deliver a No Confidence vote. However, a vote for new leadership is not necessarily the same as a vote for surrender.

For example, in September 2006 Nancy Pelosi presented her 100 Hours of Power as her bold agenda for new House leadership. But there was no mention of Iraq (the nutroots speak!).

Earlier, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had offered a New Direction for America, which essentially ducked the Iraq question, although USA Today tried to flush them out:

In an interview Tuesday with USA TODAY, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi previewed the "New Direction for America" platform hammered out
by Democratic members of Congress, mayors and governors. She and Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid plan to formally unveil the plan today.

...She said Democratic candidates will be "independent representatives for
their districts," a nod to the differing views within the party on
issues such as abortion, gun control and Iraq. They are points on which
Pelosi of California and Reid of Nevada haven't always agreed.

Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently and
unfortunately, President Bush is right that the Democrats have no "plan
for victory." (Neither does he, of course. Nor, for that matter, do I.
But I don't claim to have one. And I didn't start it.) For national
security in general, the Democrats' plan is so according-to-type that
you cringe with embarrassment: It's mostly about new cash benefits for
veterans. Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats' plan has two
parts. First, they want Iraqis to take on "primary responsibility for
securing and governing their country." Then they want "responsible
redeployment" (great euphemism) of American forces.

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

Hold the Bush Administration accountable for its manipulated pre-war intelligence, poor planning and contracting abuses that have placed our troops at greater risk and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.

Deadlines, timelines, withdrawals, funding cuts? Where are they? And since the new Congress would not take power until Jan 2007, how were the Dems planning to assure that 2006 would be a year of significant transition to fill Iraqi sovereignty? Just asking.

Or from yet another tack, the Times was filled with pre-election stories (1, 2, 3) about the Purple Democrats, moderates running against Bush. Try and ferret out the Iraq position in those stories!

I have no problem with the Dem election strategy of concealing their cards and framing the election as a no confidence vote on the current leadership. But please don't tell me after the fact that the election was an endorsement of a specific vision held by Frank Rich.

Maureen Dowd goes to France to cover their election - you can take the girl out of Manhattan, but you can't take Manhattan out of the girl:

It’s hard not to be drawn to a presidential candidate with a name like
a Bond girl, a smile like an angel, a figure that looks great in a
bikini at 53, a campaign style like Joan of Arc, and a buffet for the
press corps brimming with crustless fromage sandwiches, icy chocolate
profiteroles, raspberry parfaits, red Bordeaux, espresso and little
almond gâteaux. (When in France, let us eat cake.)

Readers braced for a quip about John Edwards or swimsuit icon Barack Obama will be pleasantly surprised as Ms. Dowd directs her inanity elsewhere:

France is chauvinistic — women got the vote in 1944 and compose only a
small percentage of the National Assembly — but the country seems less
neurotic than America about the idea of a woman as president.

Is America neurotic about the idea of "a woman" as President? Methinks Modo is projecting. However, to the extent there is a neurotic reaction to Hillary Clinton, I believe it is quite specific to her glorious past. As much as she would like to package herself as just another woman, Hillary's claim to fame is that she is the (ex) boss's wife, and what a boss! Bringing Bill's satyr dance back to the White House will never be plausibly packaged as a triumph of girl-power, however much feminists attempt it.

May 04, 2007

A few days back the NY Times had an article sneak-previewing an as-yet-unpublished study claiming to demonstrate biased officiating in the NBA. A snippet:

An academic study of the National Basketball Association, whose
playoffs continue tonight, suggests that a racial bias found in other
parts of American society has existed on the basketball court as well.

A coming paper by a University of Pennsylvania professor and a Cornell University
graduate student says that, during the 13 seasons from 1991 through
2004, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black
players than against white players.

Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy
at the Wharton School, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in
economics, found a corresponding bias in which black officials called
fouls more frequently against white players, though that tendency was
not as strong. They went on to claim that the different rates at which
fouls are called “is large enough that the probability of a team
winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the
refereeing crew assigned to the game.”

This was all in the context of their attempt to discern "own-race" preferences among NBA officials, and it is quite ingenious:

“I would be more surprised if it didn’t exist,” Mr. Ayres [an expert who reviewed the study for the Times] said of an
implicit association bias in the N.B.A. “There’s a growing consensus
that a large proportion of racialized decisions is not driven by any
conscious race discrimination, but that it is often just driven by
unconscious, or subconscious, attitudes. When you force people to make
snap decisions, they often can’t keep themselves from subconsciously
treating blacks different than whites, men different from women.”

...

To investigate whether such bias has existed in sports, Mr. Wolfers
and Mr. Price examined data from publicly available box scores. They
accounted for factors like the players’ positions, playing time and
All-Star status; each group’s time on the court (black players played
83 percent of minutes, while 68 percent of officials were white); calls
at home games and on the road; and other relevant data.

But they said they continued to find the same phenomenon: that
players who were similar in all ways except skin color drew foul calls
at a rate difference of up to 4 ½ percent depending on the racial
composition of an N.B.A. game’s three-person referee crew.

Before I became a believer, I would want to see an attempt to control for an obvious yet subjective variable - playing style. The NBA has been in a long-term culture war (example) between the Fundamentalists, represented by a (probably white) kid practicing his jumper in the driveway and getting a spare key to the high school gym from his coach, and the Hip-Hoppers (probably black) playing a trash-talking high-flying city game.

Race is almost certainly a useful (but not perfectly accurate) proxy for this divide - John Stockton (who is white) played a very "white" game, but so did Mo Cheeks and so does Tim Duncan. On the other hand Pete Maravich, also white, played with as much flash as anyone in the game.

Well. I'll bet that if the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville announced an open music competition - "Nashville Idol" - with five country music icons as judges, hip-hoppers and heavy metal rockers might lose out to the country crowd, but I would not say that it was due to racism per se.

And in the NBA, it may be that older, paler refs looking for an old school style of play are quicker to whistle the city slickers.

I don't know. But it seems like a glaringly obvious point, and although the authors mention style of play as one possible explanation for their results, they seem to mean something quite different by it.

May 02, 2007

Via Glenn and The Corner I find myself at Mother Jones a post titled "Obama's Selective Memory on His Anti-War Stance". The gist - in a fundraising appeal, Mr. Obama excerpted from his 2002 speech opposing the war in Iraq but carefully used ellipsis to drop this bit of the original speech:

The second: "that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength"

The first omission, particularly, is a bit striking. The
thrust of his speech is still on point. His foresight was still an
exercise in good judgment. Thankfully, he was not parroting stronger
anti-Saddam talking points about WMDs as many Democrats did, but
still... why the
omission?

Although Jonathon Stein, the post author, is quoting an email at that point, he clearly has not tracked down the speech itself - here it is, cleverly concealed at the Obama website, and where do I go at Google to get my ten seconds back?

Having read it, it is a speech any proper Dem ought to love. And as Mr. Stein notes, the "controversy" about the chemical and biological weapons is a bit thin - it is a matter of record that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and used them against the Iranians and his own people at one time.

So, is Obama endorsing the view that Saddam had such weapons in 2002? Who knows? But let's get beyond the ellipsis:

Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

That's not so unreasonable for a Dem candidate. One might quarrel with the notion that containment was working and that sanctions on Iraq were desirable either from a PR perspective (what about the 5,000 Iraqi babies we were killing each month?) or as a way of weakening Saddam's control of his state. And I suppose one might argue that Obama should have skipped the ellipsis and faced the (very faint) music regarding his apparent acceptance of a WMD argument - in this day and age, did he really think folks would not track down a speech posted at his own site?

But that said, there is no here here. Which puts me in Glenn's "small potatoes" camp.

The home run records that made Babe Ruth famous have been broken
but one of his records will probably never be broken — pitching the
longest shutout in World Series history, 14 innings. Few pitchers go
even nine innings these days.

No, no, no - the Babe held the record for consecutive scoreless innings pitched in the Series with 29, and this game was a part of it, but... the Babe gave up a run in the first and eventually won 2-1 in 14; his next outing was a nine inning 1-0 victory, and he gave up two runs in the eighth of his next effort. Do the math.

When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our
educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day
may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a
military coup.

Uh huh. Maybe Babe Ruth will lead it, because I don't think anyone in the military would.

MORE: I know you know Ruth beat the Brooklyn Robins 2-1 in 14, but I'll note it here anyway.

Ruth's streak was eventually eclipsed by Whitey Ford. As to the longest complete shutout, I know Jack Morris went ten in 1991, but I don't know if that is a record.